Discerning the Big from the Little

I happened to catch Newt Gingrich's presentation to BookTV at the Reagan Library which can be seen here.  As he set the stage for his new book on George Washington, he presented a sweeping context and analysis of the nation's post-2012 election situation.  It was breath-taking in its conciseness, perception and scope.  I found myself thinking --- this is what our kids need to be hearing.  A lot of the power of the presentation was the life experience he's had to back up what he's saying.  He knows what he's talking about

But here's what hit me ---- in scanning the list to see if I could find a repeat for the kids to watch, I found myself reading through the titles of the other presentations.  I noticed several that I knew would be coming from a polar opposite point of view.  I also knew that these would probably be persuasive presentations from their point of view.  And some of them might have a good point about some issue that I would even agree with.

But here's the dilemma for our present culture. It occurred to me that if my kids happened to sit down and watch Newt (without the prompting that is about to come), they might be completely inspired by this conservative vision.  But if they happened to sit down and watch a well-produced program on any one of these other issues, they could be emotionally moved to think that the leftist point of view must be correct.

 I can envision a leftist watching Newt and then watching one of these other programs, and using the potentially emotion-laden, fact-driven presentation to think he has trumped Newt's presentation.  And he would be doing that based on the presentation of a particular issue, using that to refute the whole context.  I would like for him to be persuaded by Newt, and then for us to be able to take this particular issue and respectfully discuss how to sort through that issue within a world-view that preserves rather than dismantles our historically free society. But in typical social discourse anymore, we can't distinguish between a powerful appeal based on a limited issue and the overall world-view context in which the issue is cast.   For him, any particular example, especially if it is made to be emotional grabbing, is sufficient to shut off even thinking about the merits of the conservative framework.

My observation is hypothetical, of course, but it illustrate for me the 'sound-bite' debating mode that has polarized and frankly, moronized the typical political conversation today.

Living in the Age of Change

The pastor in the church where I grew up had charge of that church for 50 years.  Remarkable!  He came to the church in 1916 and retired in 1966.  At one point I realized that the men who influenced his life were alive in Abraham Lincoln's day.  He was schooled in the days of oratory and was quite offended by any suggestion that he should ever need to use a microphone.  For some reason I was always fascinated with the lives that my elders had lived.  I grew up close to my grandparents and loved it when I could get them talking about what they had experienced in the 20's & 30's. 

But I was growing up in the 60's & 70's and was just as fascinated with developing technology as I was with the past.   I remember becoming gradually amazed at the nature and pace of technological change.  I think because my relationships had given me deep roots in the past, I could see the change not just from my perspective, but from theirs, and thereby appreciate how profoundly it was affecting individuals as well as culture as a whole.  

When I read Future Shock in 1971, I think it dawned on me what I was in for.   When we're young, we feel like we own the change and look somewhat pityingly upon the archaics who are struggling to adapt.  My own dad, for example, refused to ever look at a computer, as much as we tried to warm him up to the idea.   Like having one leg on the dock & the other in the canoe, I began to realize that this great technological divide was going to continue in an accelerating way, and at some point would dislodge me from its accepting embrace as well.

Now I watch my kids enter a world where they will never know what it means NOT to have computers, Internet, Wi-Fi, filmless cameras, cell phones, IM and on and on.  And I'm no technophobe.  I am fascinated by technological development.   But I am also attached to something that felt much more REAL in the past.  To this point I've been amazed that I've been able to continue to stretch between the canoe and the dock, rejecting only a few techy gifts like IM & Facebook.  At some point I may reach the splitting point and go out in a splash as fish bait, but until then I intend to watch and understand 'what God is wroughting' * in this most amazing period of history in which I've been granted to live.

*  On May 24, 1844, Samuel Morse sends the telegraph message "What hath God wrought?" from the Supreme Court chamber in the Capitol in Washington, D.C., to the B & O Railroad Depot in Baltimore, Maryland.  (from Numbers 23:23)    link